Ejaj Ahmad, son of Niyaz Ahmad, aged about 36 years, resident of Near DAV v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Tabassum Jahan, wife of Ejaj Ahmad @ Sonu
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1374 of 2022 Ejaj Ahmad, son of Niyaz Ahmad, aged about 36 years, resident of Near DAV School, Kathara No. 1, Washery Road, Kathara, P.O. Bokaro Thermal, P.S. Bokaro Thermal, District Bokaro Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Tabassum Jahan, wife of Ejaj Ahmad @ Sonu, daughter of late Firoz Ahmad, resident of Sector IV/F, Qtr No. 7247, P.O. and P.S. Sector-IV, B.S. City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand, permanent resident of Gaus Baba Road, Nade Ali Manzil, Bhandaridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District Giridih, Jharkhand 3. Salman Ejaj, son of Ejaj Ahmad, aged about 09 years 4. Ayan Ali, son of Ejaj Ahmad, aged about 05 years 5. Both petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are (Minor) represented through her mother and natural guardian Tabassum Jahan, wife of Ejaj Ahmad @ Sonu, daughter of late Firoz Ahmad, resident of Sector IV/F, Qtr No. 7247, P.O. and P.S. Sector-IV, B.S. City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand, permanent resident of Gaus Baba Road, Nade Ali Manzil, Bhandaridih, P.O. and P.S. … … Opp. Parties Giridih, District Giridih, Jharkhand With Criminal Revision No. 1324 of 2022 1. Tabassum Jahan, W/o Ejaj Ahmad @ Sonu, D/o Late Firoz Ahmad, age 39 years. 2. Salman Ejaj, S/o Ejaj Ahmad, aged about 09 years 3. Ayan Ali, S/o Ejaj Ahmad, aged about 05 years, (Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are minor and are presented through their Mother/natural guardian/Petitioner No. 1). Present residents of, Sector IV/F, Qrs. No. 7247, P.O. and P.S. Sector-IV, B.S. City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. Permanent residents of Gaus Baba Road, Nade Ali Manzil, Bhandaridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District Giridih, Jharkhand … … Petitioners Versus Ejaj Ahmad, son of Niyaz Ahmad. Resident of Near DAV School, Kathara No. 1, Washery Road, Kathara, P.O. Bokaro Thermal, P.S. Bokaro Thermal, District Bokaro … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner(s) ---
Legal Reasoning
maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month already directed by this Court in bail order granted to the husband, the husband would continue to pay the maintenance to the wife and children in terms of the impugned order, of course 5 the same would be subject to the final order which may be passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro pursuant to this order. 12. The present criminal miscellaneous petitions are accordingly disposed of. 13. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX/e-mail’. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Arguments
: Mr. Nasim Akhtar, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 1324/2022) : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate 2 --- (In Cr. Rev. No. 1374/2022) : Mr. Nasim Akhtar, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 1374/2022) Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate (In Cr. Rev. No. 1324/2022) : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Advocate For the Opp. Party For the State 03/16th February 2024 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both these petitions have been filed against the judgment dated 19.10.2022 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 58 of 2020 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro whereby maintenance has been fixed @ Rs. 12,000/- per month for the wife and two children and a further direction has been made that an amount of Rs. 8,000 per month which was already being received by the wife pursuant to the order of bail passed by this Court in criminal case under Sections 498-A, 324, 313, 34 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as Section 67 of the I.T. Act be deducted from the maintenance amount. The effective date of grant of maintenance has been fixed from 27.02.2020. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband in Criminal Revision No. 1374 of 2022 has submitted that Rs. 8,000/- per month was already directed to be paid by this Court while granting bail to the petitioner-husband and there was no occasion to fix additional amount of maintenance. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner had raised a specific plea before the learned court below that he had a stationary shop from which he earned Rs. 15,000/- per month and out of that earning he was already paying Rs. 8,000/- per month in the bank account of the wife. It was also asserted that the wife is a graduate and well capable to maintain the children. The learned counsel submits that these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned Family Court, Bokaro and therefore the impugned order calls for interference. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as income of Rs. 30,000/- from the car rent as claimed by the wife is concerned, that was also not substantiated by any evidence and the car was only a second-hand car which did not yield any income as claimed by the wife. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-wife and two children in Criminal Revision No. 1324 of 2022 has submitted that the manner in which the maintenance has been fixed by the learned Family Court, Bokaro 3 is not in accordance with law. The Family Court, Bokaro has clubbed the maintenance amount of two children and wife by the impugned order. The learned counsel has also submitted that both the children are studying in the school and the husband is free to pay the school annual admission fee etc. directly to the school so far as children are concerned. The learned counsel has submitted that much more expenses are involved in the matter of education of two children and the expenses is around Rs. 15,000/- per month so far as both the children are concerned. The learned counsel has also submitted that the order passed in the bail order by this Court does not quantify the maintenance amount and therefore the fixation of Rs. 8,000/- per month in the bail order has no bearing in the matter. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the marriage between the parties is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that out of wedlock two children were born. It is further not in dispute that a criminal case was filed by the wife under Sections 498-A, 324, 313, 34 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as Section 67 of the I.T. Act. It further transpires from the records of this case that the husband was granted bail by this Court upon a condition that he would be paying Rs. 8,000/- per month in the bank account of the wife for the purposes of education of the children. However, a copy of the bail order has not been placed on record, but the same has been duly discussed by the learned court below while passing the impugned order. 6. This Court finds that the wife claimed that she was not in a position to maintain herself and she had no source of income. She had also claimed that the husband was a businessman who earned Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and besides that he had income of Rs. 30,000/- per month from car rent and a prayer was made for payment of maintenance @ 75,000/- per month for her maintenance and also for two children. On the other hand, the husband had disputed the claim of the wife, so far as maintenance is concerned and it was his case that the wife was graduate and well capable of maintaining the children and that he had only Rs. 15,000/- per month as income out of which he had already paid Rs. 8,000/- per month in the bank account of the wife. 4 7. Thus, apparently there was a serious dispute in connection with actual income of the husband. 8. This Court finds that the learned court below while passing the impugned order has considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. However, from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the required affidavit in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another (supra) with regard to disclosure of income in terms of enclosures of the said judgment has not been complied by the parties, although in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another (supra), there was a clear direction that the required affidavits were to be filed in all the petitions relating to maintenance even those which were pending on the date of the judgment. In the present also the required affidavits of disclosure were required to be filed by both the parties. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the quantum of maintenance has not been fixed in accordance with law and there has been violation of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Nesh & Another (supra). Accordingly, the amount of maintenance is required to be re-fixed and therefore the matter is required to be remanded to the learned court below. 10. In order to enable the learned court below to pass a fresh order of maintenance, the impugned order is hereby set-aside and the parties are directed to appear before the learned court below on 04.03.2024 along with their affidavits of disclosure in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another (supra) and fresh order be passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro within a period of four months from 04.03.2024. The materials which have already been placed on record before the learned court below will also be taken into consideration while passing the fresh order. 11. However, considering the fact that the learned court below has fixed the maintenance amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month which includes the